Crowley Hot-Shot... was Re: tree-climbing hominid

J. Moore (
Wed, 11 Oct 95 23:20:00 -0500

Pa> "Paul Crowley" writes:

Pa> (h) The description of this "partially bipedal hominid" must
Pa> explain how its form of life exerted a selective pressure on each of
Pa> some 50,000 to 100,000 generations towards becoming more bipedal in
Pa> each generation.

Although some folks (i.e. Gould) have tried to put this sort of
view in the mind of oldsters such as Darwin, it does not match any
currently accepted evolutionary theory I am aware of, and that
includes Darwin's work in *On the Origin of Species*. Your
above-quoted sentence is the most foolishly gradualist position
I've ever read.

Pa> The extent of this change is grossly under-appreciated by nearly
Pa> everyone - but especially by the non-AAT'ers. (David Froehlich in
Pa> this thread is one example.) It's like changing car into a boat,
Pa> re-locating the engine to the back to provide power. It can be
Pa> done; but you have to do it in 50,000 steps; each stage has to be a
Pa> fully working model and EACH step has to have benefits to the user
Pa> making the car/boat significantly more effective than it was in the
Pa> previous stage.
Pa> Paul.

Analogies with designed objects become ridiculous when
(mis)applied to evolution. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable
talking with creationists, with whom you could discourse on the
possibilities of planes assembling themselves in junkyards, etc.

But just look at the nonsensical assumptions you make here, on a
subject you should know something about. That "car" means
"front-engined", for instance. At any rate, it wouldn't take
50,000 steps to get the above. Here it is: VW (rear-engined,
floatable car ---> Amphicar. See, and you didn't even have to
leave Germany.

Jim Moore (

p.s. Guess nobody's gonna get the pun in the title.

* Q-Blue 2.0 *